3 ms·
That’s not a given. The #1 criteria of fraud is intent. If you can’t prove intent, there was no fraud. We may not like it, but that’s how the system is set up.
by sillysaurusx 4y ago
That’s not a given. The #1 criteria of fraud is intent. If you can’t prove intent, there was no fraud.
We may not like it, but that’s how the system is set up.
- HarryHirsch 4y agoYes, it's intentionally set up like that to facilitate crime.
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoThe “intentional” part of your claim is extremely dubious, even if I agree with it if you omit that word. I don’t think there’s an unintentional relationships which facilitates and under-punishes fraud, but I don’t think there’s a conspiracy afoot.
- rootusrootus 4y agoThe gov't says 'reckless indifference to the truth' qualifies as intent.
- myself248 4y agoReckless indifference to the truth, then, should condemn both SBF and his aggrieved. All involved knew what they were doing, or took extraordinary measures to blind themselves to knowing.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]